Why don’t you go find SOMEONE ELSE from ANY PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION who no longe makes policy on The Middle East and get THEIR “opinions” on Syris so that you can try and tie THAT Adminstration to what is happening in Syria now?

Isn’t Robert McNamara still arounf?

How about Cyrus Vance?

Would posting and/or writing articls about THEM and THEIR RELEVANCY to Syria be LESS STUPID? I don’t think so.

Wolfie, Bill Kristol / Rove /Bush NEOCON……..meaning drag the US into wars in the Middle East to try and finally win the Crusades.

This, meaning Syria, is NOT - and has NEVER BEEN about BOOOOOSH.

Though it is not surprising that The Mainstream Media - of which Ed and allahpundit are a part – CONTINUE to try and make it so.

The REASON that The Mainstream Media, including Ed and allahpunding, CONTINUE to try and make this a discussion about mmmBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH rather than Obama is simple – and has been CLEARLY documented Time and Time Again: Ed and allahpundit and The REST of The Mainstrea Media ALL have ONE AtrributeIn Common:

]]>By: r kellerhttp://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/06/wolfowitz-syria-isnt-iraq-2003-its-iraq-1991/comment-page-1/#comment-7300560
Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:09:44 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=277778#comment-7300560this post is totally correct, which is why this is never talked about on the MSM. This is the new stuff of responsibility to protect

this is a very bad precedent. Barry talks large and bellicose
about protecting the world from counties that want nuclear weapons, CBW and all other sins…the R2P the great unwashed of the world from the tyrants who would kill them

we are the policeman…and we have a big, big military…and a bigger NSA to spy on you…get used to it punks

Maybe so, but in this case I think plausibility is on Bodansky’s and Johnson’s sides. Why would Assad use poison gas when he’s got plenty of Iranian and Russian arms and was already winning? And why do The Puppet President’s handlers want to intervene on behalf of the ‘rebels’ in Syria? It makes sense that the rebels used the gas to trigger Obambi’s ‘red line’. And is even possible that if the administration wanted an excuse to attack, they worked with the rebels to create this incident—or at least winked and looked the other way.

The question remains, why would Obambi and company want to go into Syria?

MrLynn on September 6, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Because he got himself into a d#ck measuring contest with Putin and now has to try to win it.

Assad is doing whatever Putin tells him to do. Putin sees Obama as weak and indecisive. And now he is proving it to the entire world. It’s a win-win for Putin.

Follow the money… The neocons politicians are heavily invested in the defense and war machinery contracting industry.

Blow up Syrian roads, bridges, and buildings and, presto. The neocon-affiliated job-producing defense contractors will be hired to rebuild the roads, bridges, and buildings. All protected by the neocon private security firms.

kevinkristy on September 6, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Fixed. Right idea, wrong culprit. Defense jobs are the only ones left that American companies can’t outsource. And most of them are located in politically important states and congressional districts. Administrations and Congresses of both parties understand this, whether they admit it or not.

Bonus that Obama gets to then call for an end to the sequester and a tax increase to pay for all of it so “we don’t run another war on America’s credit card.”

Joseph Bodansky and Larry Johnson both say that Obama and Kerry are in fact lying

MrLynn on September 6, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Well, I wouldn’t put too much stock into what Crazy Larry has to say-after all, he wrote an op-ed in the NY Times 2 months before the first 9/11 where he confidently assured us that the US would never be attacked by Islamist terrorists.

Del Dolemonte on September 6, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Maybe so, but in this case I think plausibility is on Bodansky’s and Johnson’s sides. Why would Assad use poison gas when he’s got plenty of Iranian and Russian arms and was already winning? And why do The Puppet President’s handlers want to intervene on behalf of the ‘rebels’ in Syria? It makes sense that the rebels used the gas to trigger Obambi’s ‘red line’. And is even possible that if the administration wanted an excuse to attack, they worked with the rebels to create this incident—or at least winked and looked the other way.

The question remains, why would Obambi and company want to go into Syria?

]]>By: ajacksonianhttp://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/06/wolfowitz-syria-isnt-iraq-2003-its-iraq-1991/comment-page-1/#comment-7300175
Fri, 06 Sep 2013 14:20:55 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=277778#comment-7300175So a civil war is equal to a war of exterior aggression against another Nation State?

Or that the best way to help the people of Syria is to help the ‘rebels’ who are not our friends and intend no good for the Syrian people?

What?

How is Iraq 1991 in any way equivalent to Syria today?

We made promises post-cease fire, which means under the expectation that Saddam would keep his word, to the Shia in southern Iraq. When did we do anything like that in Syria?

Say, if you want to help the Kurds in the eastern portion of the country, just say so! Or take up the idea of arming the Syrian people, directly, with small arms via air drop so they can resist the regime and the ‘rebels’, both. This choosing sides business hasn’t gotten us that many winners in the last 20 years, perhaps we should stop doing that.

I agree with Wolfowitz that in retrospect it would have been far better to have pressed the war in 1991 all the way to Baghdad. However, the issue in Syria isn’t at all analogous to Iraq in 1991, and our non-intervention in that civil war, because we had already intervened.

Damn straight! But, we had the inept boob, Colon Powell as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (that appointment was one of the great affirmative action jokes of all time, though Barky’s election made that seem like child’s play) advising Bush Sr. to make the whole 1991 war a total waste by not finishing it – especially after the other hussein proved that he could not be allowed to remain in control of the region after he had just intentionally dumped tens of millions of barrels of oil into the gulf (an act that most “hussein”s like to do, it turns out) and had lit just about every oil well in kuwait on fire.

In fact, we had a robust no-fly zone in place during that period and a cease-fire that Hussein arguably was violating

Nothing “arguable” about it. The other hussein broke the cease fire from the first day … and every day after.

with his genocide against the Shi’ites in the south.

Er … it was not a “genocide”. Shiite is not a genotype. It was just a whole lot of killing in violation of the cease fire we had just signed with the other hussein … on the advice of the moron Powell instead of finishing that war up.

The US had plenty of legal justification for declaring the cease-fire null and void and continuing the war, and not just in 1991 but all the way to 2003.

The other hussein declared the cease fire null and void. We didn’t have to do anything but just follow common sense. That 1991 war never ended. We let the other hussein off the hook and then let him act as if nothing had happened while he was still, technically, at war – a war that he had just lost in one of the most humiliating defeats in all of human history. But the affirmative action moron Powell didn’t like the idea of winning the war. Friggin idiot … who would go on to be even more of an affirmative action idiot as SecState.

Joseph Bodansky and Larry Johnson both say that Obama and Kerry are in fact lying

MrLynn on September 6, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Well, I wouldn’t put too much stock into what Crazy Larry has to say-after all, he wrote an op-ed in the NY Times 2 months before the first 9/11 where he confidently assured us that the US would never be attacked by Islamist terrorists.

]]>By: rplathttp://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/06/wolfowitz-syria-isnt-iraq-2003-its-iraq-1991/comment-page-1/#comment-7300083
Fri, 06 Sep 2013 13:54:15 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=277778#comment-7300083Obama and his gaggle of fools are simply incompetent but McCain knows exactly what he is doing. He sees his pals in the defense industry taking sever monetary hits and is bond and determined to restore their treasure chests. As much as I hate to say it this “war” is being proposed to cover Obama’s butt and fill the pockets of the defense contractors.
]]>By: MrLynnhttp://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/06/wolfowitz-syria-isnt-iraq-2003-its-iraq-1991/comment-page-1/#comment-7300076
Fri, 06 Sep 2013 13:51:50 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=277778#comment-7300076

The rebels who are attacking Christian villages and shooting up churches. Our new allies.

Akzed on September 6, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Do the puppet Obambi and his handler Valerie Jarrett care what happens to Christians? Or, for that matter, Jews?

Just askin’.

]]>By: kevinkristyhttp://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/06/wolfowitz-syria-isnt-iraq-2003-its-iraq-1991/comment-page-1/#comment-7300053
Fri, 06 Sep 2013 13:44:45 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=277778#comment-7300053Follow the money… The neocons are heavily invested in the defense and war machinery contracting industry.

Blow up Syrian roads, bridges, and buildings and, presto. The neocon-affiliated defense contractors will be hired to rebuild the roads, bridges, and buildings. All protected by the neocon private security firms.